2. The judgment seems to have led to the confession and reflect on the crime.

It is not good health, and it is difficult for a basic recipient to be a basic recipient.

However, the criminal liability of the defendant who caused the injury to many victims by repeating his/her business interference is not against the law.

There are a large number of criminal records, and there are many criminal records.

A repeated crime is a repeated crime because the punishment for the same crime was repeated after the release.

As such, the risk of recidivism is high.

The court of the court below rendered the sentence against the defendant by taking account of the aforementioned various positive and negative circumstances.

Although the victim D was paid KRW 60,000 in the trial, it is not punishable by the defendant.

However, considering the equity with similar sentencing cases as above, it cannot be said that there is a new circumstance that can be considered in the sentencing as a result of the sentence of the lower judgment.

No other victims have recovered from damage.

In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence is not deemed unfair.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is not reasonable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply to litigation costs.